City-County Council to Consider Doubling their Base Salary

Prop 446 will be introduced at Monday night's City-County Council meeting.

This proposal, authored by Councillor Monroe Gray and listed on the agenda as co-sponsored by Council Vice President Zach Adamson, would raise the base salary of Councillors from 12% of the Mayor's base salary - or $11,400 / year - to $25,000 / year.  All other items of compensation, like per diem money for attending Council meetings ($112 / mtg) and Council committee meetings ($62 / mtg; max 40 mtgs) would remain the same.  Also left unchanged would be the additional compensation for serving as President ($1982 / year), VP ($1320 / year), or as a Chair of a committee ($797 / year).

Quick math shows that this would increase the total Council salary by at lease $340,000, exclusive of the additional employer paid taxes.

Prop 446 will be assigned to the Admin & Finance Committee, which next meets December 13 at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.

It might be time to discuss altering the Councillor positions themselves.  Full time positions would certainly pose benefits to the community.  However, the number of full time Councillor positions and adequate Councillor compensation for full time work would need considerable discussion and reflection.



References:
Indianapolis code -  section 192-101 - compensation of the mayor 

and

section 192-102 - compensation of councillors 

Did Comey Doom the FBI, or Did FBI Agents Doom Comey?

I am a child of the 60's.  I imbibed the distrust of authority - FBI included.  After all, and for instance, they spied on Martin Luther King; looking for something, anything, to discredit equality.

In the early '80s I was a witness to an international incident that brought me into contact with real life FBI agents.  Sure they were more Brooks Brothers than I ever have been; but they were nice, didn't bullshit me, and they earned my respect.

Until now.  After some 35-ish years, I find myself reverting to my earliest reflections on that department....  authoritarian...  anti-democratic...  power with a purpose and goal.

Of course, this is due to the unnerving departure from predicate, policy, and protocol, embodied in Comey's wishy-washy statement last week about emails found a month earlier on Anthony Wiener's laptop --- Comey's statement made even BEFORE they got a search warrant in order to ascertain whether anything was worth looking at.

Shameless.

The constant and continuing leaks from 'FBI sources'.  Shameless.

The lies now being offered by the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and of course trump on the stump.  Shameless.

Comey's unwillingness to now set the record straight.  Shameless.

Reports are that the FBI is in outright revolt.  Against Comey?  Against Hilliary?  Against America?

Comey reportedly, leak-wise, objected to disclosing that Putin's Russia was behind the email hacks of the DNC -- because it was too close to the election.

Comey obviously supported the disclosure this time - 8 days before a Presidential election.  This, even though they were looking at whether OR NOT Wiener's laptop emails pertained to Clinton's god damned personal email (for personal email) server .  This, even though the FBI had not read any emails on Weiner's laptop, because they had no warrant to do so.

These two positions are not consistent if one uses the 60 day, non-election-interference, policy as a guide.  It is only consistent if one uses a screw-Hillary rule as a guide.

Comey's reputation is gone.  The FBI's reputation is gone.  And, you know, sometimes the only thing that stands between cooperation with authorities and standing up to authority is trust.  Trust is gone.

I'm older now.  The younger folks are the ones who will have to suffer under a trump regime; at least longer than I.  Even if trump is not elected, they will figure out in time, how they and what they hold dear, have suffered under an authoritarian FBI.

Thank You, Gary.

It is hard to believe that we will not hear from Gary Welsh again.  His Advance Indiana blog was a true asset to the Indianapolis community.

Unquestionably, he loved a good conspiracy theory.  But, I cannot recall him applying those to local government.

He had an outstanding ability to remember people and their relationships to each other, and to events, places and policies.  His talent in this area astounded me.

He was a really good writer.  When he was frustrated, you felt it.  When he was pissed off, you knew it and why.  He could weave together a complex series of events so that it was comprehensible.

He cared about good government.  He wanted elected officials to rise to the occasion and do their jobs in the best interest of the public - not feather their friends' and donors' nests.  He held decision makers feet to the fire; whether those decision makers were in the limelight or in the shadows,  He was often disappointed, frustrated, or angry at the frequency with which personal ambitions won out over the public good.

He cared about a responsible press.  He desperately wanted real investigative journalism - which he saw as the true role of the media - to dig into the backroom deals and pay-to-play politics that run like a current through Indiana government.

He had a shit list and nearly everyone was on it, at least from time to time.  My take was that he had special relationships with a couple of elected officials who he admired for how they did their job; Christine Scales and Angela Mansfield come to mind.  He touted the journalism of Kara Kenney and Russ McQuaid.  He had high expectations, but he wasn't unrealistic.

He had a huge readership and what he said mattered.  He also had an impressive pipeline of contacts who would feed him information - stuff that either they had no way to circulate themselves, or stuff that their public position would preclude having their name tied to.

Certainly members of traditional media followed Gary; some trolling for leads.  Only rarely did he get attribution, which says more about them than about Gary.


Gary was a prolific blogger, no doubt.  He used his talents to let our community know what our government was doing and who it was benefiting.  He was passionate about it.  He did it like no other.



I like to think that Gary has taken up a spot near the Pearly Gates and is setting about critiquing the alacrity with which St. Peter allows entry to certain folks and watching closely who exactly is being given the golden harps.



Thank you, Gary.  For all that you did for our community for so long.  You made a mark and there is a void left in your passing.

Lobbyists - What They Are Getting Paid To Promote

Lobbyists are registering to conduct business in City Hall for 2016.  So far, the City's Lobbyist database lists 20 individuals who work for 8 companies and represent the interests of 26 organizations.

Compensation for the lobbying, when listed on the forms, totaled $471,529.46.

Here are efforts, which I present divided into topics.

SPORTS

Indy, Sports and Entertainment (which lists indyeleven.com as its website) have hired Joe Loftus of Barnes & Thornberg to lobby the Office of the Mayor.  The registration notes the topic as "economic & industrial development" and a compensation of $67,410.

Pacers Basketball has Lacy Johnson, Ice Miller, working for it, chatting up the City-County Council regarding "amusements, games, & sports", for $8625.

TECH/IT

Xerox Business Services is spending $54,894 with Joe Loftus, B&T, to lobby the Mayor's Office.

Cincinnati Bell Technical Solutions is down for $184.87 compensation to Mark Shublak, Ice Miller, to talk with the IT Board.

ELECTIONS

Election Systems and Software is plunking down a total of $19,589.74 for B&T lobbyists Brian Burdick and D. William Moreau, Jr, as well as Ice Miller's Carl Drummer.  They are all lobbying the Marion County Clerk and Election Board.

RBM Consulting has hired Greg Hahn, of Bose Public Affairs Group (BPAG), to lobby the same folks for $8000.

CORRECTIONS

Perhaps many of these folks are interested in a new Justice Center or what happens to them if one is built.

CCA of Tennessee is spending $120,000 for B&T's Brian Burdick and D. William Moreau, Jr. to make a case to the City County Council, the Marion County Sheriff, and the Office of the Mayor.

WMB Heartland Justice Partners has Ice Miller folks, Lesa Dietrick, Tom John, and Carl Drummer working the Department of Public Safety, the MC Sheriff, and the Office of the Mayor for $2341.53.

Bingham Greenbaum Doll is employing the efforts of Joseph Smith of Faegre Baker Daniels to talk with the City-County Council, and compensating him with $1890.

3M is spending a mere $69.83 for a slice of Tom John's time with Marion County Community Corrections.

ENGINEERING

DB Engineering has hired Tom John and Carl Drummer of Ice Miller to address their concerns with the Department of Public Works and the Mayor's Office - for $597.54.

Infrastructure Engineering has John and Drummer talking with the same folks for $470.69.

Commonwealth Engineers has engaged Kyle Walker of Kyle Walker Consulting to speak with the Department of Public Works, the topic being "environment".  No compensation was noted.

RQAW Consulting likewise has Walker talking with the Department of Water Works (huh?) about highways and roads/streets.  Again the compensation was not listed.

BILLBOARDS

This lobby is going gangbusters again this year.

Outfront Media is spending $16,978.35 for 3 BPAG lobbyists, John Cochran, Trent Hahn, and Greg Hahn.  Trent didn't list who he is lobbying, but the other two noted the Department of Metropolitan Development and the topic of "zoning".

Lamar Companies has hired the same three to lobby for the same thing with the same department - for $8850.63.

Clear Channel Outdoor prefers B&T, hiring D. William Moreau, Jr., and Matthew Morgan for $5362 to chat up DMD on "zoning" matters.  They also are using their own employee, John Kisiel to lobby the City-County Council regarding "other".  Kisiel lists $13,875 as his compensation.


MISCELLANEOUS

Angie's List is compensating lobbyists Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson of Ice Miller with $71,978 to address "economic and industrial development" matters with the City-County Council and the Office of the Mayor.

BC Initiative is spending $38,217 for the lobbying efforts of Joe Loftus, B&T, to speak with the Mayor's Office regarding "charitable & nonprofit organizations".  BC Initiative is an affiliate of BioCrossroads.

Herman & Kittle Properties are down for only $37.61 for Tom John, Ice Miller, to talk about "planning/land use" with the Bond Bank and DMD.

Salesforce is spending $200 on its own employee, Amy Waggoner, to talk about "other" with DMD.

Bose Public Affairs Group feels the need to hire another lobbying group to represent it with the City-County Council, DMD, and the Mayor's Office on the ever popular topic of "other".  They have hired Carl Drummer of Ice Miller for $839.30 in this effort.

Ambrose Property Group has Drummer and Lacy Johnson, Ice Miller, dealing with the City-County Council regarding "other" for $2006.96.

IU Health is lobbying the City-County Council, too, regarding Health and Healthcare.  They have Lacy Johnson representing them for $6570.

National Strategies, LLC, for Taser International, Inc., is compensating two BPAC folks, John Cochran and Jennifer Ping, a total of $5000 to talk "safety" with the Department of Public Safety, Information Services Agency, the IT Board, and the Office of the Mayor.

The National Rifle Association has registered their employee, Christopher Kopacki, to address "other" with the Mayor's Office and the Council.  His listed compensation is $197.41 for this role.

Last but not least, Giant Eagle - the grocery concern - is spending $17,344 with BPAC.  Three of their lobbyists, Melissa Coxey, Ahmed Young, and John Cochran are registered to speak with the City-County Council about "zoning".  Greg Hahn is registered to talk about "planning/land use" with DPS, DPW, the Crime Prevention Advisory Board, the Council, the Department of Code Enforcement, DMD, DPS, the Indianapolis Economic Development Comm., the Indianapolis Economic Development Board of Directors, the Indianapolis Neighborhood Housing Partnership Board, the Metropolitan Development Committee (presumably of the Council), and the Metropolitan Development Commission.

I am hoping that the registration of Ahmed Young is a foolish mistake on somebody's part, and the the ethics policy of Mayor Hogsett does not allow his Director of the Office of Education Innovation to be simultaneously employed as a lobbyist.

To recap, the big money so far is on CCA of Tennessee ($120,000), Angie's List ($71,978), Indy Eleven ($67,410), Xerox Business Services ($54,984), billboard companies ($45,065.98), BC Initiative (BioCrossroads) ($38,217), Election Systems & Software ($19,589.74), and Giant Eagle ($17,344).

Indy's Supposed Structural Budget Deficit - Too Soon

Man, I didn't see this coming.

Newly inaugurated Mayor Joe Hogsett has barely begun to get used to the view from the 25th floor and he's trying to ease the public psyche toward yet another tax increase.

Fox 59 reporter, Russ McQuaid, has published his interview with Mayor Hogsett, where taxes and spending and budget deficits and wishes and wants were all discussed.  At the end of it all, Hogsett said his staff will analyze the fiscal house left by outgoing Mayor Ballard and will come up with a plan within 90 days.

But, talking of a tax increase?

Too soon.  Especially since Hogsett supports a tax increase for public transit through a referendum this year.

Too soon.  And to mention building a new jail in the next breath is a bit of a jarring juxtaposition.  New jails don't finance themselves.

Hogsett said at his inauguration that there is a $50 M structural deficit - meaning the City-County takes in $50 M less than it must spend each year.  In McQuaid's piece, Councillor Jack Sandlin says the Council Democrats and Mayor Ballard agreed to spend down the fund balances for the last few years until we are at the unhappy place where "we don't have fund balances to spend down anymore...".

Well, I beg to differ with both gentlemen.

I pulled a few numbers from the 2012-2016 budgets to examine the changes in fund balances from January to December, and to see how the estimates of fund balances changed before and after the year's budget was passed.   The first is how much of a deficit the City-County expected or did run each year, and the second is how well they estimated how much money would be in the bank at the end of the year.

For those who don't like graphs and numbers, the bottom line is that, while we have been treated to expectations of deficit spending each year from 2011 through 2016, we have not actually spent more than we took in (after money from the sale of the water/sewer utilities is accounted for).  In addition, projections of future fund balances made before the budget is finalized, always get substantially improved a year later.

Every year the budget process begins mid-summer.  Year end fund balances are estimated at that time.  So, the numbers are estimates of money coming in and money going out in  6- 18 months in advance.  The budget book contains a summary of the previous few years' budgets, moving from 'adopted budget' to 'revised budget' to 'actual budget' as the years progress.  I pulled these numbers and found that the adopted budget nearly always predicted deficit or near-deficit spending each year.  By the time actual revenue and expenditure numbers where known, the bleak picture had not developed.

Let me pause for one second to note that I am using 'deficit spending' to mean spending more money than you take in.  This means that the year end fund balances should go down between January and December if there is deficit spending.

The numbers for changes in fund balance I used are those reported after one-time money is accounted for.  For instance, the water and sewer utilities were sold in 2011 - giving the City a huge cash influx.  That money was spent over time on infrastructure and cricket fields and $80 M was set aside in a 'fiscal stability fund', intended to recession-proof the City's AAA bond rating.

Below are the expected and actual changes in fund balance over the last few budget years as reported in the annual budget book.

As you can see, while the predictions of fund balance changes were consistent with deficit spending, the actual fund balance changes have been positive - meaning we spent less than we took in.  Of course, we await the actual fund balance changes for the 2015 and 2016 budget years.

Here we see that the estimated value of fund balances actually increase when recalculated after the budget passes.  The budget books don't report the actual fund balances, so I can only show you the two predictions.  I include this information only to note that the doom and gloom estimates at budget time don't hold up - at least if the last few years are any gauge.

True, nearly $40 M was taken from the consolidated downtown TIF in 2012 - but that was when the City was trying to wean itself off the infusion of funds Obama sent out to municipalities across the nation as the Great Recession settled in - they had gotten used to the money and the feds weren't sending as much by 2012.

True, the latest budgets have been 'balanced' with 'management reserves' - forced savings across the enterprise.  But, a simple budget cut would accomplish the same thing, as budgets were crafted with the expectation that 'savings' would be captured by years end.  So, its not exactly overspending the revenues.

Taxpayers have endured one tax increase after another - the latest round supposedly for public safety.  Yet, its hard to track whether or not these tax increases have gone to the expenses the public was told they would. We will soon have a referendum on a tax increase for public transit.  Stormwater management fees have gone up and will do so automatically for a while.  Water rates - up.  Sewer rates - up.

The last few months of the Ballard regime saw tens of millions of dollars that weren't budgeted, spent on unwise contracts signed without any public review.  These monies may cost us, but surely should not be used to claim any 'structural deficit'.  Unwise spending on unwise contracts should be avoided in the first place.

If the Hogsett administration is looking to make some changes to the way things are done for the benefit of the fiscal health of the City, I would offer the following suggestions:

Assign a sunset date to the consolidated downtown TIF, so future mayors and taxpayers have the financial resources the TIF was supposed to create. 

Ditch the idea of a new jail until the resources are identified and a tax hike is demonstrated as unnecessary to make ends meet or to fund the jail.  Neither should it be financed with job loss.

Change the 'management reserve' system of budgeting and replace it with a 5% across the board cut - its the same thing, but deficit spending would be harder to confuse with spending within one's means.

Pull jobs from high priced lawyers and consultants and cultivate those resources in house.  Review all contributions to local not-for-profits that do work for the City that could be done by City employees at a fraction of the salary.

It will be interesting to see what Hogsett's people come up with.

But, for right now, its too soon to hint about tax increases.  The data just aren't there that any structural deficit exists.

Inaugural Ball a Campaign Finance Affair

Joe Hogsett is joining what now appears to be a tradition for Indianapolis Mayors - holding a dual purpose inaugural ball; a campaign fundraiser combined with a great party.

Just in case anyone who might want to be on a newly seated Mayor Hogsett's good side failed to donate to the campaign, you still have the opportunity to toss in anywhere from $100 for a single ticket to $10,000 to be a 'gold sponsor' and attend the Inaugural Ball.  The information is posted on RSVP.JoeHogsett.com which is paid for by his campaign.  The information gathered for registration is identical to the campaign finance information that is to be gathered for public disclosure purposes.

The adherence to the letter of the campaign finance laws is a good thing.  And, the fact that those ponying up the cash will be listed in a future campaign finance report for all the public to peruse is awesome.

For those of us who were heartened by Hogsett's campaign that, in part, spoke against the same old deal for the same old downtown insiders, the price tags raise the hair on the back of one's neck.  It doesn't help that 'The Inaugural Committee' and 'Browning Investments' are co-hosts of the affair.  My attempts to find out who comprises the Committee have not been productive - but at some point I expect that list will be publicly disclosed.  What I do know is the Browning Investments has been a beneficiary of City Government largess in the past - and some might very well think they are one of the downtown insiders the campaign commercial alluded to.

Maybe a new Mayor, some day down the road, could add a 'less than affluent - less than influential - just as important' ball that same night.  The new Mayor could hop from party to party and all of us would have a chance to celebrate the hope and good will that a new Mayor sweeps into office with them.

Keeping my fingers crossed that January 1, 2016, will actually be a new day for Indianapolis and its neighborhoods....  But, I'm not tossing in $100 to attend a fundraiser disguised as a black tie optional ball.

Say No To the Mayor and Council Raises

At tomorrow night's City-County Council meeting, Prop 413 will be introduced.  If passed it would increase the salary of the Indianapolis Mayor and base compensation of Council members.  The Mayor would receive $125,000 per year, up from $95,000 - a 31.6% increase.  The Council would untether its compensation to whatever the Mayor makes and opt for a $16,400 base salary.  That would increase their base from $11,400 to $16,400 - a 43.9% increase.  Both receive other, smaller categories of compensation as well.

The press is reporting that this would put the Indy Mayor closer to the salaries of certain donut-county Mayors.  This does not convince me of the wisdom of the proposed raise.  $95,000 is still high enough to put bread on the table.

While we are at it, the Deputy Mayor salaries should be rolled back to pre-2014 levels, or just less than the Mayor makes.  While I often hear that those at the top positions in government need to be paid enough to keep them from moving on to the private sector - I find that is usually what they intend to do all along, and that they are using the government position as a key stepping stone, no matter the salary for those 'lean' years.

According to the US Census, fewer than 5% of Indianapolis residents made over $100,000 in 2014.  This "over $100,000" category is a catchall for the upper limit earners.  So, the Mayor and Deputy Mayors are not grievously harmed by receiving compensation less than $100 grand.  Methinks there are other reasons to be Mayor or one of his closest advisers - public service among them.

Mayor-elect Hogsett should ask that the increases instead be applied to an effort to bring all City-County employees up to a living wage as serving a greater good.  Combining the proposed increases for Mayor and Council with a rolled back Deputy Mayor compensation would provide well over $200,000 a year in seed money.

It is unclear how many city employees do not earn a living wage - and that ignorance in itself is not a good thing.  The lowest salaries listed in the budget ordinance do cover a living wage for a single person with no children - just over $20,000.  The living wage doubles with the addition of one child.  I doubt the city can afford that much as a minimum, but we need to have our City Government be a good employer, too.  That means we need to know where our employees stand, whether we are equipping them with knowledge and skills to move forward in life, and how to best compensate all of our employees.  We need to look at the reality of the job holders, too - are they entry level workers developing their skills for better paying jobs elsewhere, or are they on a career path that will become problematic as their families increase?

Every year, select employees get raises - usually those with union contracts and some with higher salaries who could earn more elsewhere.  In the near decade I have been following the budget process, only once was a comprehensive compensation review conducted, followed by raises to move some employees out of poverty wages.  Most every year, most employees get no raises.

This is an opportunity for Mayor-elect Hogsett to set a positive tone for his Administration - that all employees matter and that a living wage is a goal worth evaluating, setting and meeting for the City of Indianapolis.

The Invisible Hand(out) of the (Taxpayer Financed) Market

The war between cities and regions to attract business development generated the handouts known as 'incentives', 'tax increment financing', 'abatements', and more - a virtual cottage industry in how to funnel taxpayer funds to well connected developers.  There are more noble goals in play at the same time, like, hoping for a catalyst to spur private sector investment.  But the subsidies don't seem to ever end.

We have seen this cottage industry begin to morph from incentives to entitlements - industries that are begging for land upon which to develop, still expect hefty abatements to "level the playing field" and they no longer even try to tie job gains with those tax benefits.

Now, quietly yet out in the open, there is another transformation happening - the perpetual enrichment of favored landowner through taxpayer funded inducements for development upon leased real estate.

The North of South/City Way investment of about $100 M of taxpayer money involved development of the housing/retail/hotel/fake tech park built on top of land leased from Eli Lilly.  How much cash flow that provides Lilly is - well - none of your damn business, Ms. Taxpayer.

While the land lease model worked out in City Way, it does not always go so smoothly.  The airport has been trying to lease prime real estate where its old terminal used to be.  It has prominent frontage along I-465 and enviable access, not to mention an already existing parking garage.  Plus the old building has been torn down and hauled away.  Height restrictions do play a role here, but there is also the ingredient of who would want to lease the land upon which to construct a building.  Even a fifty year lease will find a day when the tenant must either re-up the lease or move on -- and at what cost?  The only offer they have noted in public has been a casino complex - which I personally root for, but the point here is the paucity of interest.

Last night the City-County Council voted to float $75 M in TIF bonds for the 16 Tech project.  Roughly $55 M would go to move water lines, power lines, and gas lines, and build a bridge and a park - all of which will make the land owned by IU Foundation, IU, Beurt R & Corena J  Servaas, the Benjamin Franklin Literary Medical Society, Health & Hospitals Corp. of Marion County, and Methodist Hospital much more valuable.  Yet, this land will be leased to eventual developers, not sold for the development.  But, it gets even better for these entities - 16 Tech Community Corp has been set up and will be funded by the rest of the bonds to the tune of just over half a million a year (with salaries ranging from $30,000 to $200,000) and their job will be to market the property to developers - so that these not-for-profits don't have to lift a finger or pay a single salary in order to cash in on the taxpayers' largess.

All that said, this one kind of amuses me.  I like the area in question getting a leg up and I like trying to promote biotech for the long run.  I do wonder, though, how viable the land-leasing model will be. In worst case, Mass Ave and Union Station and Circle Center Mall and the rest of the consolidated downtown TIF can all contribute to paying off the bonds.

I've wandered off the point of this post.  What we now have are the taxpayers being expected to fund a quarter to a third of all downtown development AND sustain abatements that need not include increased employment ALL THE WHILE our investments are quietly generating a perpetual revenue stream to well connected landowners.

IHPC Delays Digital Billboard Decision

I just posted this entry on the IBJ's Indiana Forefront.  I would only add - many thanks to Councillors Joe Simpson and Zach Adamson for supporting the broader community interest by asking that the digital billboard variance be delayed until after the sign regulations are reviewed in a vigorous, transparent, and public process. ---

Last night, as reported by Hayleigh Colombo in the IBJ, the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission continued to October 7, both the building design and the digital billboard variance proposed for Mass. Ave.

I was in the audience, waiting to speak to the digital billboard variance on behalf of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations.

From November to June, 59 organizations joined forces to move the digital billboard debate from behind closed doors to the appropriate public venue – the upcoming Department of Metropolitan Development review of the entire sign ordinance.  After all the meetings and all the debate, the Council agreed.

The proposed ‘digital canvas’ envisioned for the building that would replace the Mass Ave fire station needs a variance expressly because it would be a digital billboard.  They propose posting ‘sponsors’ information either on 20% of the space or 20% of the time.  Motion and sound would be allowed.

A continuance was proposed by two Councillors – Joe Simpson, whose current district includes the site, and Zach Adamson, who is running for reelection to the new district boundaries that will include this site – via letter to the IHPC.  Initially the Commission was moving toward a continuance until after the Council passes the new sign ordinance, presumably some time next year.  Then the developer and his representative asked for the October 7 date so they could discuss it with the two Councillors.

Continuing this variance request is wise for a couple of reasons.  The broad community deserves its hard fought and hard won vigorous public process that would decide if digital billboards are right for Indianapolis.  If lifting the ban was found in the community’s best interest, then issues such as how to measure and regulate light levels, size, motion, sound, appropriate locations, interactivity with the driving public, and other safety issues would be discussed and appropriate parameters would be set.

If the Mass. Ave. digital billboard variance comes first, it could create a precedent and set a standard that became the tail that wagged the dog.  That, undoubtedly, was why John Kisiel, Vice President of Clear Channel, was in the audience for 5 hours last night.  Kisiel has stated that he was assigned to Indianapolis by Clear Channel to open Indy up to digital billboards.

Let’s face it, the billboard industry is a litigious group.  They have shown they will take cities to court if they can find any chink in the rules or application of the rules.  Indy’s billboard ban has successfully weathered their attempts to gain variances and prevailed in the subsequent lawsuits.  Granting this digital billboard variance would demonstrate uneven application of the ban.  Given these are the waning months for the Ballard administration, who know whether the variance would be challenged.  As they did in other cities, the biggest mess being in Los Angeles, this would give the billboard industry just the opening they need to seek unfettered and unregulated access to Indy’s streetscapes.

Some will say this is only relevant to the Mass. Ave. neighborhoods.  But, given the dynamics at play in the digital billboard arena, the digital billboard variance is about all of our neighborhoods.

City Loses No Time Asking for Bids On Electric Fleet

Today's paper reports that just yesterday, Mayor Ballard and Council President Lewis signed an agreement over the new electric car fleet.  The 212 electric cars already delivered by Vision Fleet would continue to be subject to maintenance through Vision Fleet, but the remaining 213 would be put out for public bid.

Yesterday afternoon, the Purchasing Division put out RFP14-DPW-598

Four (4) Year Term Contract to provide an Electric Vehicle Program to the Consolidated City of Indianapolis - Marion County, through the Indianapolis Department of Public Works, Fleet Services Division

They wasted no time.

I have to ask, though, where is the public discussion on how many electric cars we should have, what attributes those cars should have and to whom they should be assigned?

Most certainly, the $45,000 lifetime cost per car was outrageous, and I am quite glad that the Council took a hard stance against the deal, if for that reason only.   Equally outrageous was the way the Mayor's office yet again circumvented the proper procedures - whether simply to avoid scrutiny by the Council and the public or to assure the award went to the favored company, or both.  Both of these have been stopped in their tracks, which is half a loaf.

Council discussions over filing the lawsuit against the Mayor have divulged other issues including problems with charging the cars overnight in the homes of those assigned the cars and lack of truck space for heavy arms that police officers want to carry.  The last one I still don't get - the cars were supposed to be assigned to administrators who don't really need a peppy car to get them to the scene.  So, whether more than this category of officers got the electric cars or these administrators just want to carry assault rifles, I don't know.

For me, it is not just about the Mayor's office circumventing proper procedures, and probably the law, its about them doing it so often that Vision Fleet has simply become a poster child for "The Ballard Way".  It is shocking to see how Ballard's time in office has devolved from him being a champion of transparency to being a manager of insider deals kept from the light of day, surreptitiously funded with moneys not appropriated for the purpose, and protected by a 'just say no' attitude to releasing public documents.

In any case, if you are interested in leasing the City 213 electric cars and taking care of them for 4 years, get your proposal in by October 2.

Board of Public Works Approves $6 M Expenditure for Blue Indy Infrastructure

Blogger Gary Welsh over at Advance Indiana has been following the Blue Indy contract with the Ballard Administration (see here and here for the latest).

He reports that on Tuesday the Public Works Board voted on putting $6 M in a Region's Bank escrow account for Blue Indy to draw down - refusing to take public comments when he requested time to speak.

I have embedded the WCTY broadcast of the Blue-Indy escrow account section of the meeting below.

From what was said at the Board meeting, the Ballard administration is pooling the $6 M from three funds - the parking meter fund, the city's cumulative capital projects fund, and the rebuild indy fund.  Whether this allotment of funding sources is a last-minute maneuver on the administration's part, or was buried in the budget from the get-go is not clear.  From testimony by Bart Brown, the Council's CFO, it is clear that the Council did not know of this project and to its thinking, did not appropriate funds for it.

What also is left up in the air, is whether the administration cancelled or postponed other projects in order to have enough money to pay the $6 M tab - which is evidently due by Sept 1 according to testimony on the details of the contract in response to a Board member's question.




The 2016 budget for the Department of Public Works is up at tonight's Council Public Works committee meeting - beginning at 5:30 pm in room 260 of the City-County Building.

CIB Meeting - Pacers Agenda Item

Here is the 18 minute clip from WCTY's broadcast of yesterday's CIB meeting - the portion where the Pacers deal for use of CIB land for 40 years (with an option for a 10 year extension) was 'discussed'.

The vote was whether or not to pursue negotiations for an agreement, based on the general points to which the Board had access. Presumably it is the same list of points published in Mary Milz' peice yesterday on WTHR.

Most questions were asked by City-County Council President, Maggie Lewis, who sits on the CIB due to her position on the Council.  She asked great questions, but most were referred to a Pacers press conference supposedly being held in the next few days - so left unanswered.

Please note, that the Board President, Earl Goode, referred to "individual briefings" on the particulars.

It is too bad that the public does not have access to what the general terms will be, as there is nothing posted on the CIB website, nor was there any presentation to inform the public.

Pacers to Get 40 Year Deal - Taxpayers Only Got 10 Year Deal

I'm still getting up to speed, but Mary Milz, WTHR reporter, is telling us that the CIB voted to move forward to ink down a deal with the Pacers' on their proposed $50 M training facility.

Under the deal, the Pacers would get the land east of the Fieldhouse, now used for parking, for $1 a year for forty years, and 240 additional parking spots in the Virginia Street parking garage for free.

Meanwhile, the 2014 Pacers agreement with the CIB only has the team guaranteed to stay in town for 10 years (9 more at this point).

Milz' report includes what appears to be a handout from CIB meeting this afternoon, sketching out the rough terms of the deal.

If the Pacers leave town before the 40 years are up, the CIB may purchase the training facility building for a preset price, or the then-operable market price, whichever is greater.

My first question is, why would the CIB give these terms to the Pacers for 40 years, but only extract a ten year commitment to keep the team?  Sounds like the Pacers are (oh gasp !) getting a better deal than Indy taxpayers once again.

I'll have to wait for the WCTY taping of the meeting to get logged into the archives to hear more.

Hell NO Pacers !

Google "Pacers CIB" and you'll get a raft of links to $160 Million deal with the Pacers in 2014 - yes, just last year - that raised taxes and supposedly had the Pacers in town for another 10 years.

WTHR reporter Mary Milz is reporting tonight, that the Pacers will ask the CIB to build them a new practice facility - at what cost they do not say.

Its time to pull the plug on all this nonsense.  This city gets blackmailed year after year by one after another sports team or venue.

JUST SAY NO and lets begin to work on making Indy a great place to live beyond downtown.  That will take money, too.  It's long past time to invest in the rest of Indianapolis.

Ballard Uses Neighborhood Services to Shill For Blue Indy

The Ballard Administration is pushing out ads for Blue Indy's electric car rental for profit business.

Like many of you, I receive messages from my Mayor's Neighborhood Liaison that sometimes tell you about trash pickup schedules, neighborhood clean ups, public information meetings and other items of interest to residents and neighborhoods.

Yesterday I got one from "Mayor's Neighborhood Services" and it contained an ad for Blue Indy.  When I posted on Facebook about it, Ted Dobracki mentioned it was the second one.  So I scrolled back through my not-yet-deleted emails, and sure enough, I had received an ad for Blue Indy in an email blast from my MNL on Tuesday as well.

This isn't right, guys.  These email communications are supposed to be for government business, not ads for companies.

The Tuesday ad was brief and followed by a note on the rise in stormwater drainage fee - which is where my attention was drawn.

Yesterday's ad was more glossy and came after information about a grant  opportunity for neighborhoods :

The blast list must be enormous.  Not to mention the further reach effected when public officials and neighborhood folks forward Neighborhood Services' emails to others.  It has actual monetary value to advertisers.

This misuse of taxpayer funded communications needs to stop.  Hopefully this will be the last ad I get from the City government.

State Legislature Meddling in Indy Yet Again

Last night began the City-County Council committee work to review, amend, and adopt the 2016 budget.

There was one particular item that got a bit of discussion that was quite interesting.

You will recall that the last few budget sessions have been punctuated with an ongoing fight over whether or not to eliminate the local homestead credit on property tax bills of homeowners.  The Democrat controlled Council has refused to eliminate it all at once and even refused to phase it out.

Well, it seems the Ballard Administration has once again turned to the State Legislature to change the rules so that Ballard can get his way.

Currently, income tax revenue (COIT) is used to fund the local homestead credit.  According to Council Counsel Fred Biesecker, with HEA 1485, COIT can no longer be used in this manner after January 1, 2017.  If the Council wants to continue the local homestead credit (LHC) in 2017, it will be forced to RAISE a NEW TAX.

The LHC costs $10 M, but only $2 M actually makes any difference in homeowners' property taxes, since so many of us are being protected by the tax caps.  But, the remaining $8 M doesn't just evaporate, it lessens the tax cap/circuit breaker impact on the many school districts in Marion County, IndyGo, Health & Hospitals, and the Library system.

By upending the current funding source, the Republican controlled State Legislature is reaching into what will likely be a Democrat controlled Mayor's office and forcing it to RAISE TAXES to maintain the status quo.  Of course, if a Republican were to somehow win the election, the Legislature left itself a year to 'correct' course so that no such dilemma would have to be faced by a Republican.

The upshot is not just having to raise a new tax - it also includes having to wade through the weeds and convince the public that it is somehow wise to raise taxes by $10 M so that members of the public can benefit by $2 M.

This is clever and cursed at the same time.

Whenever a local problem is brought to the State Legislature by a Republican, the solution is to do whatever makes the Republican's political life easier.

Whenever a local problem is brought to the State Legislature by a Democrat, the solution is to give them the authority to raise taxes.

And now we see that when a Republican is likely to be succeeded by a Democrat, the solution is to delay the authority to raise taxes until the Democrat is seated and crafting his first budget.

Lobbyist Ties To Councillor Leroy Robinson Continue Unabated

Councillor Leroy Robinson, Chairman of the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee of the City-County Council, continues his cozy relationship with lobbyists who have business before his powerful committee.

His latest campaign finance report, covering contributions from January 1 and April 10 of this year, lists contributions from lobbyists D. William Moreau, Jr. and Greg Hahn.   Hahn is, and has been for some time, a registered lobbyist for Lamar Companies and Outfront Media, both billboard companies.  Moreau was registered to lobby for Clear Channel last year, but has not registered to lobby for them this year.

Hahn is also Robinson's Campaign Treasurer.

Hahn is not doing a particularly good job at that position as far as filing a complete report is concerned.  Hahn reports, as he should, donations for the reporting period as well as the total donation by an individual for the year-to-date.  Since these time periods are one and the same, both columns should be identical.  They are not.  Hahn lists himself as having given a $250 donation on March 15 and a year-to-date total of $500.  There is no entry of another time at which Hahn gave Robinson's campaign the other $250, as there is required to be. 

Additionally, Hahn lists Moreau's $250 donation on February 15, with a year-to-date total of $700.  Again, there is not another entry showing exactly when Moreau gave that money.

And, the summary cover page does not report the year-to-date figures.

Also, there is no mention of any donor's occupation, whereby the public might have a shot at putting two and two together.

You might be interested in the fact that on April 21, after the campaign finance reporting period ended, Robinson had a fundraiser, co-sponsored in part by not one, not two, not three, but four lobbyists with business before his committee --  Greg Hahn, Ahmed Young, Carl Drummer and Lacy Johnson.  Of course, the public will not be able to find out how much these 'interested citizens' helped Robinson's campaign raise that night, until after the Primary Election on May 5.

Robinson has tried to do some good things while in office, of that I have no doubt.  But, he is damaging, if not destroying, his reputation and the public confidence in him by continuing to have lobbyists front and center of his campaign.  The fact that they have business before his committee is cause for immense concern.

New Property Taxes to Pay for Criminal Justice Center????

At last night's Public Safety & Criminal Justice Committee meeting, Council CFO, Bart Brown, presented part of the analysis the Council commissioned to analyze the Ballard Administration's estimates of the cost for their proposed Criminal Justice Center.

The completed report, "Marion County Justice Center Fiscal Feasibility Analysis", which also compares the cost to the taxpayer for the City to build and operate such a facility without the elaborate public-private partnership Ballard favors, can be found on the Council's website.  I have read it once, and have a number of questions to follow up with before I say anything here about it.

Brown's presentation last night, however, was more tailored to where the Administration says there are present funds that can be turned to pay for the construction and operation contract it hopes to ink down with WMB Heartland Justice Partners and how reliable the Fiscal Feasibility Analysis finds each of these sources to be. 

Below is the clip from WCTY's broadcast of Brown's presentation, along with a very pertinent follow-up question from Councillor Leroy Robinson, where Brown suggests new property taxes just might have to be raised should the Council approve the CJC plans now on the table.

Brown's last PowerPoint slide kind of says it all:
"There exist[s] a high probability that the next Mayor & Council must raise revenue to meet an obligation to WMB"

Councillor Leroy Robinson Signs Billboard Lobbyist as Campaign Treasurer

Brian Eason's expose` on the flood of campaign contributions to key Councillors coming from billboard industry lobbyists, leaves an open question of who is influenced by those dollars.  The billboarders are pushing for digital billboards through Prop 250, which they and their lobbyists wrote.

Chairman of the Council's Metropolitan & Economic Development committee, Leroy Robinson, to whose committee Prop 250 is assigned, got nearly a third of all money from these guys in 2014 - or $4000 in cash and in-kind donations out of $12,037 in total Council campaign donations.

Wait, it gets worse.

The billboard lobbyists even threw him a fundraiser.

Wait, it gets worse. 

Robinson's campaign finance report for 2014 shows that the fundraiser was held the day AFTER Robinson released the agenda for the November 17 MEDC meeting.  This was the first time Prop 250 was placed on an agenda of the committee, even though it was introduced back in August.  The delay violated Council rules, but, hey, they violate their own rules on a regular basis.

So, he held off placing Prop 250 on the committee agenda for more than 3 months.  It's hard to believe that the timing of the fundraiser and the movement of Prop 250 onto an agenda are mere coincidence; not probable, but still possible.

Wait, it gets worse.

Robinson recently reorganized his Campaign Committee and reported the changes to the Election Board on a "Statement of Organization" form file dated January 20, 2015, but hand dated January 7, 2015.  This change puts Gregory Hahn, billboard lobbyist for, and partner of, Bose, McKinney & Evans, in the position of Robinson's Campaign Treasurer.

That's right - a billboard lobbyist doing business before the Council committee that Robinson Chairs - is now the keeper of Robinson's campaign cash.  Hahn is kind of a one-man band - donating, throwing fundraisers, and now logging the checks.

Robinson's feting by the billboard lobby and his flaunting of the public interest by putting one of them in as his Campaign Treasurer, is a clear conflict of interest, and should be raising eyebrows all over Indianapolis.

Billboard Industry Insider's Assessment of Councillor Attitudes Toward Prop 250

Gary Welsh is reporting quite the email from Clear Channel billboarder, John Kisiel.  It was written just over a year ago and the names of the persons to whom it is addressed have been omitted.

As someone who has been working strenuously against Prop 250, it was a chilling read.

I'm going to let you read it, then begin my comments.

From Gary's update to his post on Brian Eason's IndyStar report on Prop 250 and campaign contributions:

From: "Kisiel, John" <JohnKisiel@clearchannel.com>
To:
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 3:03 PM
Subject: Digital Billboard Resolution

Resolution: Attached is the final version of the Resolution regarding digital billboards. Bob Elrod looked at my original version and pared it back to make it more streamlined and more palatable for the Council and I agree with what he has produced.

 

Timing and Headcount in Caucus: I think we are to a point where we need to get a hard headcount from your respective Caucuses to see who we need to go after in order to get this initial piece through Council at the next meeting in three weeks. I have attached the Resolution along with my most recent assessment of support among the Council members. Please keep my assessment confidential. I thought you should have this so you can also target those members who are still undecided and give you the opportunity to give me updates in case I am wrong in how I am reading the Council. Please talk to the members of your Caucuses and to your Council about whether this can go on the next agenda or how this needs to proceed. Both the Mayor’s office and DMD are aware that we are following this process and we will update them on the timing.

 

Talking Points: I also attached a brief set of talking points on the 2% Solution to give you some additional background to refer to if asked about the proposal.

 

I will be at Council tonight in case you want to talk to me about any of this.

 

Thank you again for your work on this.       

Below is the lobbyist's assessment of council member's leanings on the issue last year when things first got rolling:

 

ZACH ADAMSON (D) ) Noncommittal, tough reelection fight may impact but he is tech savvy guy

FRANK MASCARI (D) Yes - sponsor    

JOHN BARTH (D)   Noncommittal, positive bias company buys billboards

JANICE MCHENRY (R) NO     

VERNON BROWN (D)  Noncommittal - one day yes another I don't know 

MICHAEL J. MCQUILLEN (R) Yes     

VIRGINIA J. CAIN (R) Yes - sponsor       

MARY MORIARTY ADAMS (D) Noncommittal - supporter of Marion County Fairgrounds and would probably like digital at Fairgrounds for revenue

JOSE M EVANS (R)  Yes     

WILLIAM C. OLIVER (D)  Unknown - no return calls or e-mails      

AARON FREEMAN (R)  Yes - R lead sponsor    

MONROE GRAY, JR. (D) Noncommittal negative bias      

VOP OSILI (D) Noncommittal positive bias (Councillor Simpson believes  he is a yes but voted for ban in 2006)

WILL GOODEN (R) Yes - offered to sponsor    

MARILYN PFISTERER (R) No - concerns about impact on neighborhoods 

PAMELA L. HICKMAN (D) Yes - sponsor       

LEROY ROBINSON (D) Yes - Chair of Committee where this will likely land 

JASON HOLLIDAY (R) Noncommittal negative bias   

BEN HUNTER ( R )  Yes - very strong supporter     

JACK SANDLIN (R) Noncommittal, positive bias. Councillor Freeman says he will vote yes

MAGGIE A. LEWIS (D) Noncommittal, positive bias - likes public safety element   

CHRISTINE SCALES (R) Noncommittal, negative bias     

ROBERT B. LUTZ (R) Yes -      

JEFFERSON SHREVE (R) Yes - may have issue as lessor for CCO and JR promotions

BRIAN MAHERN (D) Noncommittal    

JOSEPH SIMPSON (D) Yes - D Lead sponsor and strong supporter 

ANGELA MANSFIELD (D) Non committal - strong negative bias. Hates Lamar billboard at 86th and Ditch

STEVE TALLEY (D) Noncommittal - concerned about neighborhoods' position

JEFF MILLER Yes -BUT, he may have issue with neighborhoods has positive e-poll he conducted 

Now - for my reflections on this email....

First of all, are the taxpayers paying for Elrod's rewrite of the billboard industry proposed ordinance?  And what on earth is the "2% Solution"; with a capital S no less???

More importantly, HOW VERY COZY Kisiel is with whomever he sent this email to.  "Please keep my assessment confidential. I thought you should have this so you can also target those members who are still undecided and give you the opportunity to give me updates in case I am wrong in how I am reading the Council."  They seem to be taking orders from him, like he was their boss and they his employees.

He was also keeping DMD and the Mayor's office in the loop - to what end and how supportive those two entities were is not clear - "Both the Mayor’s office and DMD are aware that we are following this process and we will update them on the timing."  

All of this time, the public was not in the loop.  Kisiel had pegged the following people as sponsors:  Frank Mascari, Virginia Cain, Aaron Freeman, Will Gooden, Pam Hickman, and Joe Simpson.  Cain and Gooden serve on the Metropolitan & Economic Development committee (MEDC).

Of the MEDC members -
   Chairman Leroy Robinson - yes
   Zach Adamson - noncommittal
   John Barth - noncommittal
   Ginnie Cain - yes
   Mary Adams - noncommittal
   Vop Osili - noncommittal
   Will Gooden - yes
   Jeff Miller - yes
All Republicans on the committee plus the Chair - YES. 

Of the full Council, Kisiel thought he had 13 votes.  15 would be needed to pass.
   Mascari, McQuillen, Cain, Evans, Freeman, Gooden, Hickman, Robinson, Hunter, Lutz, Shreve, Simpson, and Miller.

I keep wondering who he addressed this email to.  Obviously it is at least two Councillors as he mentions their 'respective caucuses'.

Is this the way things are done on the Council?  Do industry insiders usually bark orders to their serfs on the Council?  I certainly cannot say.

Is this any way to serve the public and the public good?  I don't think so.